“OSS is honored to participate with and support HK’s Program Team and their winning CSASS submission,” said John Spurrier, OSS Chief Executive Officer.

“This lightweight variant of the HK G28, integrated with OSS’s over the barrel suppression system, effectively delivers the improved reliability and accuracy, reduced felt recoil and enhanced suppressor performance required by this contract, and critical for its intended broad spectrum of sniper missions,” said Spurrier. “The OSS design, engineering and product teams have worked closely with our HK partners since 2012, and we look forward to the work ahead.”

“The CSASS contract, as well as recent U.S. Government agency testing, are important validations for the unmatched performance of OSS’s patented Flow-Through™ technology,” said Chris Estadt, VP of Sales and Marketing. “Weapon systems with OSS suppression don’t see the adverse effects on the shooter or weapon often found with baffle suppressors like blowback and buildup of particulates, increased backpressure and recoil, or first round flash,” said Estadt. “And these are especially critical for sniper mission effectiveness.”

This entry was posted
on Thursday, April 7th, 2016 at 13:00 and is filed under Contracts, Press Release, weapons.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

I saw OSS at their range during shot. They have cool technology that really seems to negate all the disadvantages of the traditional baffle design but its two part design seemed complicated and required constant attention to make sure it stayed firmly attached to the weapons system. I did see one can blow the end cap off during a rifle demo. The company also seemed like it was in some turmoil. The sales guys were good dudes that knew their product and had extensive experience but you could just sense that there was a “disturbance in the force” with the whole crew.

I’m not trying to dis the product. Just relaying what I saw. Like I said, seemed like it fixed a lot of the negatives of the baffle design. I also know I saw the sales guys constantly tightening the end cap on the demo suppressors.

Notice the contract does NOT EVEN IMPLY that the OSS can was part of the winning contract? The HK won, no doubt, but nothing on the OSS part. I’m 99% certain their design wouldn’t actually work in a military application. The can undthreading itself exlcuded.

This seems to be OSS trying to piggyback, I’m not buying it. If their can was ANY PART of the winning contract it would have been in the first line of the presser.

If an OSS suppressor was used on the test rifles that ultimately won the contract for HK, wouldn’t they have to continue using the same suppressor? Or was a suppressor not even really part of the requirements?

derp/rob/2nd…
Why wouldn’t the system be fielded as selected with the SB and the OSS…and funny Lupy isn’t the scope selected for the CSass weeks or months ago, now we know SB owes the govt scopes that were returned so maybe that makes a difference…but what’s the negatives of the OSS design?

You do realize the system was tested as a whole…The winner had to assemble a complete package and submit that for consideration. The OSS can, the S&B scope…it’s the package as a whole that won. That package was assembled by HK, so yes it’s all there. As for unscrewing caps…funny I was at battlefield Vegas and never saw that…care to explain why an OSS can wouldn’t work in a military application?